[arin-ppml] Is Emergency action warranted for Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure?
mysidia at gmail.com
Tue Dec 7 01:18:51 EST 2010
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
> Let's plan the best we can now, before IANA hands out the last 5 /8's.
> Let's look like we're cognizant of the impending address outage and making
> reasonable plans to set aside space for transition (Proposal 122) and the
> future unknown (Proposal 123).
It seems a perfectly benign use case for an Emergency PDP, if the sole
effect is to reserve a final single /16.
Providing there aren't other policy changes, allocation is effected
only if the anticipated emergency actually arises.
I agree plan now... with the date of the next public policy meeting in April;
it appears clear that the final /8 will most likely have been
allocated to ARIN by then.
The "last minute" as it were is not the 4 months from now,
that would be required to bring the item to the public meeting under
the normal PDP.
It is also possible, that applications for IP addresses will force
that /8 to be drawn down under
current policy, before any action is possible under the normal PDP.
Use of emergency PDP would seem to be called for, if the /16
reservation is needed to
ensure that all space is not allocated, so that there is no space to
allocate from to address
any critical infrastructure needs.
If we think the final /8 will be used up before the next policy
meeting, and we are wrong, if the final /8
has not even been allocated by that time, or the final /8 has more
than a /16 left,
when the policy would be reconsidered at the public policy meeting and
possibly annulled, then
the emergency PDP had no "effect", since the final /16 to be
reserved had not been requested
to be allocated.
It would only have an "effect" if we were right, and a final /16
needed to be stopped from being
More information about the ARIN-PPML